Why the quotations around "under oath?" They're unnecessary. Clinton lied under oath, and he was impeached for it. Newt did not lie under oath, and was never impeached for it.
Lying under oath is perjury, and making the distinction isn't "weaselly," as you say, but based in fact.
I like and respect Newt a great deal more than I do the groping, perjuring rapist Bill Clinton and would never allow a disdain for facts to suggest moral equivalence between the two. You?
The quotation marks are to emphasize that this is the technical distinction the Gingrich camp is making.
My point had nothing to do with comparing Gingrich to Clinton. Hit the “in response to” button a few times and check out the history of that post if you missed it.
It all started with me making the point that those who are personally okay with Gingrich’s multiple affairs are in no position to then claim that another candidate is unfit to be POTUS because he stumbled similarly.
To which I received the response: “well, yeah, but what about if Cain lied about the affair to the nation, huh, huh? Then he should resign!”
At that point, I simply pointed out that that argument also held no water because Gingrich also lied about that particular affair. IOW, if that — “lying to the nation” — was the standard the poster applied to Cain, it should also be applied to Gingrich, and Gingrich failed.
So the weaselly distinction is not between lying and lying under oath (I agree with you completely about perjury), but between implying there is no moral failure inherent in lying unless it is lying under oath.
Related, it’s also weaselly anytime someone uses a technical legal standard to obsfucate the facts of their conduct. Gingrich did lie.
Please note that Cain, the subject of the “what if he lied to the nation?” post, is not under oath, therefore perjury is not an issue. If Cain is lying, his lie “to the nation” is no different than Gingrich’s lie to the nation about his affair or Clinton’s lie to the nation (during the press conference, not under oath) about his affair.
That is all.
I have no clue how you took from my post that I in any way had disdain for the facts or saw a moral equivalence between Gingrich and Clinton. But I can assure you neither of those points is correct.
Thanks.